Gautam Buddha University, Uttar Pradesh V. Addl. CIT (TDS), Noida

ITA 2065/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91296 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SULEKHA VERMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SH. N. K. SAINI, AM ITA NO. 2065/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 200 7-08 ITA NO. 2066 & 2067/DEL/2013 : A SSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 ITA NO. 2068 & 2069/DEL/2013 : A SSTT. YEAR : 2010-11 GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVERSITY GREATER NOIDA, DISTT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH VS ACIT (TDS) NOIDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAAJG1479P ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. SULEKHA VERM A, C.I.T., DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT : 09.07.2015 ORDER PER BENCH : THESE FIVE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE SEPARATE ORDERS EACH DATED 23.11.2012 OF LD. CIT(A )-, NOIDA. 2. EARLIER, THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 0 4.03.2015 AND ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THESE CASES WERE ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 9 TH JULY, 2015 AND BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ITA NO. 2065-9/DEL/2013 2 ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, T HEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROS ECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIE W THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA L TD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE R EFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RET URNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 47 7-478) HELD THAT ITA NO. 2065-9/DEL/2013 3 THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 09/07/2015) SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 09 /07/2015 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 2065-9/DEL/2013 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 09/07/2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09/07/2015 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 09/07/2015 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 09/07/2015 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 09/07/2015 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 09/07/2015 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 09/07/2015 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.